Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3
kennedy, after watergate there were some laws to separate the white house. there is evidence that clinton misused the irs. it is an old game. this is not just something obama was doing, this was down the chain. i do not think they found a link that suggested obama was involved. >> we only learned about did a week ago. we are saying there is not a link to the white house. i do not know if there is. when obama was asked, can you assure us no one in the white house knew about this, his answer was, i did not know about the ig report until i read about it last week. he was asked about the scandal, not the ig. he gave the most narrow answer you could have. all i am saying is that it opened a lot of questions. >> as i followed the story, we learned about the existence of the inspector general's report, the treasury department on the irs. that had not been released. there was a reference made to it earlier. i can understand the president not knowing about this. he would have been ill-suited to get into the details. the law is clear about the white house separating them from the irs. >> what goes
, they said that the lawsuit was filed under the wrong law, that it was filed under public nuisance law rather than under liability law. >> what's interesting now is that there's another suit coming up in california. and there was fear that the california suit would not go forward because they thought the precedent of the rhode island supreme court denying the legitimacy of the suit would undermine that case. the court in california rejected the arguments of the supreme court in rhode island. the supreme court of rhode island had said this can't go under, there is no standing in future generations to get damages from these companies because they haven't been damaged yet. until the kids are damaged you can't actually sue. and california has said that absolutely, public health law is all based upon preventing disease. all regulations are in order to prevent future damage, therefore it can go forward in california. so we're quite excited because in june this court is, this case is going to be heard by a california jury. >> tell me about the baltimore case that you write about. >> in the 1980s, re
in congress for a journalist shield law. gwen: the fourth part of the stool is the specter of -- i'm trying to remember, government overreach. the second part of it is the specter of government cover-up. and the third is what? constitutional intrusion? >> yes. i don't see the cover-up aspect of this. gwen: no. of benghazi. i was talking about. >> benbenghazi, yes. >> this is fundamentally different from the others. first of all, it is a policy change. it's not a scandal per se. and the question is, did they overreach and go too far and define too broadly the scope of what they -- the record they wanted? did they make a mistake? did they get the balance wrong by not talking to the a.p. and negotiating the scope of this before? gwen: right. >> it also doesn't fit in a partisan sense because republicans were it not the coincidence of these other scandals wouldn't care very much about this at all. and neither would the american people to be honest. the people who care about this are civil libertarians and people in the press. who want that line drawn as narrowly as possible. but that's a pretty
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3